This Is the Rand Paul Essay I Would Have Written...

had I not been so uninspired over the past few days. I immediately grew tired of the Rand Paul flap simply because of the absolute idiocy of liberal responses I read. Liberals treat racism as if it is the most evil motivation one can have. And any action motivated by dislike of race is criminal. If the action is a crime, then the punishment needs to be even more severe than if the crime were motivate by the usual hate. So while murder is bad, to murder someone because he was black is an abomination. That is worthy of life plus 20 years, whereas to murder someone in the course of a robbery is just life. Unless you robbed the person because he was black and then killed him. That's the death penalty.Of course, such racism is only racism if it oppresses or offends minorities and women; white men can be mistreated because they are white men for eternity.

Via Wilton Alston, I discovered this essay by Bretigne on The Rand Paul Kerfuffle. She makes two points that really struck a chord with me. First she writes:

Am I the only one who thinks it’s crazy that a person can advocate mass murder, and pre-emptive war and can still be a part of civilized discourse, but use the “N” word, and they’re ruined?  The charge of “racism” has become the lowest kind of smear one can make against one’s opponents, and if substantiated, can end a career.  Meanwhile, the cheerleaders for the wars, and the war crimes, continue to be welcome in polite society.  Am I the ONLY one who thinks there is something wrong with that?  That we as a culture seem to have elevated name calling to a higher offense than advocating murder and wars of aggression?

The idea that liberals are pro-peace or antiwar (an idea propagated by Republicans to argue that liberals cannot protect the country) is ridiculous. Liberals are some of the most violent people you will ever meet. They may not personally want to hurt or kill you, but they will advocate that the State smash you to a pulp if you stand in the way of their agenda. Remember when liberals were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when Bush was in office? Now that Obama is in office, where are these antiwar liberals now? With few exceptions, they have kept their mouths shut because they really never cared that brown people in foreign nations were being killed by US forces. They were upset that Bush, a Republican, was in charge of this mass murder. Had Al Gore won the election, liberals would have said nothing if Gore decided to "liberate" the Afghan and Iraqi people.

Liberals covet power and they do not care at all that people are dying as a result of the use of that power. As long as they are in control, they continue to believe that their actions are just and righteous. And with Obama in office, they smell blood in the water. They hope that they will see the nation converted into the socialist/communist paradise they all dream about. And if brown people in foreign countries (and this country thanks to the War on Drugs) have to die to bring paradise on earth, so be it. You can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.

The second point that I found illuminating is:

And this, I think, gets more to the heart of why most people really don’t get what Rand Paul was saying about the Civil Rights Act:  Most Americans really don’t take any kind of principled position on private property rights or indeed on the use of force.  The prevailing ethic -- if one can call it that -- seems to be:  If people are not behaving the way I think they should be, then force is justified to get them to do so.  If a problem -- any problem -- is identified, force is not only justified, but is usually the first solution most Americans will embrace.

She is preaching the libertarian gospel here. Libertarians are the only ones who take a principled position on property rights and such a position is completely alien to most people. Most people essentially adhere to a "I believe in property rights, but..." position. What follows the "but" is any random value that people assert should trump property rights. Racism, equality, the environment, gay rights, etc. There is never a philosophically consistent reason given; the reason is whatever the people think should trump property rights at the time. But libertarians only make an exception when a property owner uses his property to threaten physical violence against another person; this consistency drives most people up the wall because the majority of people believe that there are always other exceptions. People may disagree on what those exceptions are, but they know that there are always more exceptions than the use of aggression by the property owner. And the fact that libertarians do not make any more exceptions genuinely confuses the masses.

I encourage you to read her entire essay. It really is a good read.

Comments

[Redman]

Great read as well as the article by Bretigne. Clearly from the comments her article generated most folks do not "think" or "know" history unless it is the kind taught in govt. schools. It is for these reasons, uncritical thinking or outside the propaganda box, that we as a people are doomed. Whenever 'force' is the first and preferred solution to "all" issues, rights are doomed---except for the rights of the force owners, of course.

[Jdcullison]

Hell, I went to public school (high school in the late 80s), and the shocking thing to me was simply how much they were willing to teach. It hardly mattered, though. I came away from it ashamed of my country; I think most folks take history and use it as a guideline for proper behavior as an American. *shudder*

[Wilt Alston]

Thanks for the hat-tip, Brutus.

[jdogg]

As to the portion of the essay dealing with "racism". Whenever someone wishes to confront me on my natural right to associate with whomever I damn well please or exercise my natural right to utter my thoughts aloud and label me a "racist", I always answer with either, "So?", "And?", "What of it?" or "Yes?" This has worked well for me, at least. If the person wishes to press the point further, I simply exercise my natural right no longer associate with that person. Pretty straight forward solution form my POV, anyway.

As to the portion of the essay dealing with the cognitive dissonance of the vast majority of the American people, instead of all the in depth analysis with regards to them, why not just acknowledge them for what they are; Philistine hypocrites?